MSERC Can Recall Orders Using Inherent Powers Under Reg. 26 & Reg. 111: Meghalaya HC Finds No Bar in Electricity Act, 2003 [Read Order]

In this case, the petitioner is Byrnihat Industries Association, a society registered under the

Meghalaya Societies Registration Act. The petitioners have approached the High Court to contest the order passed by the Meghalaya State Electricity Regulatory Commission (MSERC) on August 23, 2024. Through this order, the Commission allowed some intervention applications, withdrew its earlier orders from 05-06-2024 and 06-06-2024, and decided to hear the matter afresh to fix electricity tariffs for the years 2024–2025 and 2026–2027 under the Electricity Act, 2003.

It is also vital to note that two other writ petitions have been combined in this case, as they have similar issues. The main respondent in all three writ petitions is MSERC.

The orders dated 05-06-2024 and 06-06-2024 were earlier challenged in WP(C) Nos. 216 and 217 of 2024 by MePDCL, MePGCL, and MePTCL. They argued that the orders were passed without a proper quorum and violated Regulation 18(3) of the Meghalaya Electricity Regulatory Commission’s 2007 regulations.

The petitioner’s counsel, Mr. K.Paul, submitted that the respondent no. 1 did not possess the inherent power or jurisdiction to recall an order once passed and that the Electricity Act, 2003. It was submitted that the recall of the orders dated 05-06-2024 and 06-06-2024 was not suo motu, but based on an application by the Electricity Corporations.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the recall was neither due to an error apparent on the face of the record nor a palpable mistake, and that Regulation 26 of the Meghalaya State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Conduct of Business) Regulations, 2007 does not grant an independent power of recall but merely saves powers already conferred under the Act, which do not apply here. He also submitted that Regulation 21 allows review only upon application by an aggrieved party. To strengthen his argument, the counsel also relied on the case of Special Reference No. 1 of 1964 reported in (1965) 1 SCR 413.

Read More: SCN Cannot Be Challenged Prematurely before Final Adjudication unless it Pertains to Jurisdiction or Lack of Authority: Madras HC

The respondent’s counsel contended that the Commission has exercised its inherent powers under Regulation 111 of the Meghalaya State Regulatory Commission Multi-Year Tariff Regulations, 2014 (MYT Regulation) 2014. With regard to the petitioner’s contention that neither the Electricity Act nor the MSERC (Conduct of Business) Regulations, 2007, and MYT Regulations, 2014, allow the Commission to recall its orders, it was submitted by the counsel that in the absence of any express provision, the Commission can rely on its inherent powers, especially since the earlier order was non est.

The high court by relying on the case of Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority vrs. Prabhjit Singh Soni & Anr. reported in (2024) 6 SCC 767, noted that the Commission has inherent powers under Regulation 26 of the MSERC (Conduct of Business) Regulations, 2007, and Regulation 111 of the Meghalaya State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Multi-Year Tariff) Regulation, 2014. The bench held that a tribunal can use inherent powers to recall an order in the absence of any contrary provision to ensure justice or prevent abuse of process.

The bench noted that as there are no express bars in the Electricity Act, 2003, or the MSERC regulation, 2007, or the MYT, 2014, and thus the Commission was well within its rights to exercise its inherent powers in this case.

The High Court, comprising acting Chief Justice H. S. Thangkhiew, upheld the impugned order and dismissed the appeal.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates